Best scope rings for a 22...standard rimfire groove or Weaver style?

[saturno_v]

Hello Guys

What do you think is the best solution for scope rings in a 22 rifle, the standard rimfire ones to be attached to the receiver groove, or a standard Weaver style?
My rifle has both the groove and it is tapped for a traditional Weaver scopebase.
I got from the store scoped with the Leupold see through rimfire scope rings, do you think I should keep those or put a "big boy" scope base? What could be the advantages/disadvantages of the 2 systems? Is the rimfire attachment system less stable and prone to loosening?


Thanks in advance for your advice and suggestions!


Regards

 

[CajunBass]

I've got rifles with both systems and I don't see much difference. They both work fine for me. Maybe if you were using a bigger heavier scope than the (something) X32's I use, there might be an advantage to "big boy" mounts.

 

[saturno_v]

I use the cheap Simmons 3-9X 40 that came with the Rifle.

 

[SwampWolf]

Two (slight) advantages using the grooved receiver have are (1) you can mount the scope a trifle lower and (2) there is no mount/base to get loose. I suppose a conventional Weaver set-up would offer a bigger/wider "bite" to the ring/mount relationship and have a theoretically more stable union. I am really "parsing" here because for all intents and purposes, there are no practical differences between the two systems.

 

[CajunBass]

I use the cheap Simmons 3-9X 40 that came with the Rifle.

In that case, just clamp it onto the tip off groves on the reciever. They'll work just fine. That's how I've got mine on my 597.

 

[Jim Watson]

I got from the store scoped with the Leupold see through rimfire scope rings,

I don't think it matters which type you use, but I would certainly replace what I once heard called "look under brackets" with as low a mount as possible.

 

[Vicious-Peanut]

I had the dove tail mounts n my .22 magnum and they worked fine I guess, but I had already bought the weavers so I put them on. They look better, I don't know if they are needed though.

 

[ken22250]

the groved reciver works exelently for its intended purpose, ive seen them that i dont think have ever been toutched, on my grandfathers winchester 52, and they are extreemly stable.
ken

 

[dagger dog]

Weaver mounts with the original crossbolt design rings will not slide, even with marginally tight screws, and will usually be lower or closer to the bore than most rimfire 3/8" grooved receiver type rings.

 

[SwampWolf]

I

don't think it matters which type you use, but I would certainly replace what I once heard called "look under brackets" with as low a mount as possible.

Then throw them in the nearest trash heap! Nothing makes a rifle more unwieldy and harder to secure a good "cheek weld" on than these critters.

 

[rangerruck]

Wellllll.... the rail is interesting, becuase if you bench shoot a lot, you can really move your mounts back to the rear, alot!!!! and get real comfy and close to your eyesight. The problem then becomes scope walking, and it will, unless you have some really good mounts, wide, with 4 screw holes around the base, and 4 screw holes on the tops of the rings, not just two. another thought is to mount tip off blocks, onto the rail first, and then use those as your weaver type mounts. this is very stable, and lets you move them close , just as above. problem here is, your scope is going to sit high up off your rifle. The drill and tap then, is the most stable, but will proly not let you get the most comfy scope position, for your eye relief, as the rail will. Your choice.